Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this bill even though we have missed an opportunity to improve upon it. While I am pleased that we are providing an authorization for the National Institute of Standards and Technology and supporting the vital MEP program, this bill falls short by failing to authorize the Advanced Technology Partnership, ATP. I am also disappointed that this body did not pass my amendment increasing funding for the Advanced Technological Education program. ATE works with community colleges and industry to assure that students entering the workforce have the skills they need to be competitive. A technologically trained workforce is vital to strong manufacturing and technological industries, and ATE directly impacts the workforce. We have heard over and over again today the need to better support our manufacturing industry. And I believe there are portions of this bill that make important strides in that direction. For example, this bill includes authorizing the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, program at $110 million for FY06. MEP provides vital support to small manufacturing companies in our country to remain successful and competitive in a global market. These small manufacturing companies make up 98 percent of the manufacturing industry in this country, yet they are continually struggling and jobs are being lost. MEP centers works directly with local manufacturers to provide expertise and services tailored to their most critical needs, which range from process improvements and worker training to business practices and information technology applications. This is a Federal, State, and private-sector partnership where every Federal dollar leverages two dollars in state and private-sector funding. A small Federal investment leverages billions of dollars in benefits for the economy in terms of jobs created and retained, investment and sales. This bill also provides authorization numbers for the construction and maintenance of NIST facilities. The urgency of this is shown by the facilities in my district, which are 50 plus years old and in need of maintenance. These authorization levels will allow NIST to upgrade these facilities to ensure they continue to perform cutting edge research. While this bill widely supports MEP it leaves behind another highly successful program, ATP. We have continually heard the majority express their support for this program, but time and time again they have not taken the opportunity to fund it. During the markup of this bill in the Science Committee Mr. Honda offered a similar amendment to the one he offered before the Rules Committee. His amendment had the same authorization levels that were upheld in the Senate a week ago. Unfortunately, the majority did not support it. When I offered an amendment to fund current ATP projects through completion and cover close-out costs, Chairman Boehlert indicated that my amendment would mean that we have ``given up on ATP.'' But what I see is that the Republican majority supports this important program with words, rather than deeds. I was hopeful that we would agree with the Senate and support ATP aggressively since the program has proven to be effective. Now we must look to the Senate to improve this bill. Madam Chairman, though we face a tough budgetary future we need to realign our priorities to provide the foundation for our economy to grow. We no longer have the luxury of only competing with ourselves. Countries across the globe have the skills, knowledge, and workforce to compete in manufacturing and technological innovation. At the same time, we are witnessing in this country a decline in science and math graduates, below average test scores in math, and jobs continually being moved overseas. While this bill does improve upon the current situation, it in no way solves enough to truly invigorate our manufacturing industry. We need to truly support research and development, science and math education, and workforce training. So Madam Chairman, it is with disappointment that I support this bill. It is a modest and narrow effort to support this country's manufacturing base, but it is better than nothing in terms of supporting manufacturing.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the century of service the Cheesman Dam has provided Coloradans. The dam is an engineering marvel that has provided water to the Denver metropolitan area for the past century. The dam was constructed with the goal of providing the natural resources necessary to Denver area expansion. The dam has provided effective water management that has brought both environmental stability and economic growth to Denver. Chief Engineer C.P. Allen executed the construction of Cheesman Dam with speed, precision, and creativity. The dam contains three million cubic feet of masonry, 21,000 tons of concrete and weighs an impressive 300,000 tons. The world's largest dam at the time of its completion, Cheesman was hailed by many as an engineering marvel. Though it didn't remain the largest dam in the world, it has continued to garner engineering acclaim. In 1975 it was proclaimed a National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Cheesman's engineering prowess and historical significance are not its only qualities worthy of praise. The dam is, in many ways, a unique reflection of the Colorado spirit. Built to emulate the surrounding natural area, Cheesman's granite construction attempts to assimilate modem engineering advancement with the beauty of Colorado's open space. Its spillway follows the same pattern as it was intentionally developed in the formation of a natural cliff rather then a typical dam. The American Society of Civil Engineers explains that the, ``Cheesman Dam is . . . of such historical significance and contemporary importance that is should never be forgotten, but placed side-by-side with other national and historical landmarks of the engineering profession.'' Its 100th anniversary is an accomplishment for the hundreds of workers that laid the stone in its construction and its talented engineers. Special recognition is also owed Denver Water and all of its employees--past and present--who have maintained this critical feature of Denver's water supply system. Through the efforts of Denver Water and the foresight of those who built this facility 100 years ago, Denver has been able to thrive and prosper.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and honor the important contributions Ray C. Christensen has made to Colorado and the country's agricultural community. Ray has served as the executive vice president of the Colorado Farm Bureau for the last 20 years and with his retirement, Colorado will lose a powerful advocate for agriculture. Shortly after I was elected to the State legislature in 1996, I came to know Ray and was often reminded of how highly regarded he was at the State capitol. I was aware of agricultural issues, but hardly an expert--and I knew other legislators in both parties who took a somewhat disdainful attitude toward farm issues. Others felt that agricultural matters were best left to State legislators from rural areas. But as Lew Entz--now a State Senator--reminded me, ``If you eat, you are in agriculture.'' I took that to heart then, and I take it to heart as a Member of Congress. From the farm to the table, nothing is plainer or more important, and no one embodies this truth better than Ray Christensen. Ray's professional biography makes this abundantly clear. He graduated from South Dakota University with a B.S. and graduate degrees in geography and agriculture. He has held positions at the South Dakota Department of Agriculture, the Missouri River Basin Commission, and the office of Public Affairs for the Farm Bureau. He has also served on the Colorado Agricultural Council, Denver Agricultural and Livestock Club, Colorado Public Expenditures Council, Colorado Medical Society Foundation, CSU Cooperative Extension Advisory Council and Colorado Commission on Taxation. As executive vice president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, Ray cultivated valuable relationships with Colorado businesses, environmental organizations, and social advocacy groups, ensuring long- term progress that spans beyond the agricultural community. Uniquely dedicated to cooperation and driven by the concerns of the family farm, Ray has provided invaluable service to Colorado agriculture. Ray and I come from different walks of life and different political leanings, but I have always respected his depth of experience and his steadfast commitment to rural America. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Ray Christensen and in wishing him success in all his future endeavors. It has been a privilege to work with him on a number of issues, and as a friend from Colorado once remarked to me, ``It's a whole lot better to have Ray on your side than the other way around.'' I couldn't say it any better.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, heroes are those select few among us who are endowed with courage and strength, those who risk life and limb to further a cause greater than themselves. I rise today to honor seven such heroes, the astronaut crew of STS-114. These men and women should be very proud of what they accomplished on this historic mission. Through their bravery and ingenuity they helped bring our manned space program back to life. After two-and-a-half years on the ground, we have finally returned to space to continue our exploration into the unknown. Though our shuttle program still faces many challenges in the months and years to come, we are taking time today to acknowledge the progress NASA has been made thus far. I would like to thank those responsible, not just the astronauts, but the entire NASA team, thousands of dedicated men and women at NASA centers across the country, for their commitment. In honoring the astronauts of STS-114, we should not forget those who came before them. By continuing our exploration of space, this mission continues their legacy. I am sure that the brave souls who gave their lives aboard the Columbia would be very proud of this Discovery crew. Their steps of progress will lead us into the next chapter of human exploration. Thank you and I urge members to suspend the rules and pass this resolution.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a bill to reestablish the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as an independent agency, and to require that its Director be someone with appropriate training and experience. The undeniable shortcomings of the federal response to the tragic effects of Hurricane Katrina have shown that FEMA' s most recent director, Michael Brown, was not qualified for the Job--in fact, he really was in over his head. Now that he has resigned, Congress should begin the process of strengthening FEMA and assuring Americans that Federal emergency management efforts will be handled by a capable and effective leader. As a first step, I think we should revisit and reverse our decision to fold FEMA--formerly an independent agency--into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). I was never completely comfortable with that decision. When the House considered the legislation to establish the new Department, I voted for an amendment (offered by the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Oberstar) to keep FEMA independent. I did so because, as I said at the time, I feared FEMA's core mission and focus would be lost in the new bureaucracy. It was argued that FEMA--as the central agency in charge of disaster response and emergency management--should constitute the heart of the new DHS. But FEMA had been primarily engaged in and especially effective at responding to natural hazards, not terrorism. We should have left FEMA outside the new department, or at a minimum transferred its Office of National Preparedness to the new department, while leaving FEMA's Disaster Response and Recovery and Mitigation Directorates intact Although the independent-FEMA amendment failed, I voted for the overall bill while expressing the hope that ``the President will continue to work with the Congress to make sure the agencies moved to the new Department will be supported in their many other important duties even as they focus anew on their security roles.'' Unfortunately, recent events have given horrific proof that I hoped in vain and that my fears were well-founded. Therefore, the bill I am introducing today will reestablish FEMA as a separate agency. It also will require that its Director be a person with appropriate formal training and at least two years of experience as the head of a disaster-management agency of either a State or a political entity--a city, county, or other area--smaller than a state but with a population of at least one million people. To provide continuity and insulation against politics, a director, once nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, would serve a 6-year term--although of course, as an Executive Branch official he or she would be subject to the direction and control of the President and thus could be removed by the President. Reorganizing FEMA is only part of the necessary actions to respond to the tragedy and devastation on the Gulf Coast. But I think it is a necessary part, and I think this bill would help us be better prepared for the next emergency.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Audrey Berry. This week, Ms. Berry will be retiring from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) where she served for over 12 years at DOE's Grand Junction Office on Colorado's Western Slope. Her work at DOE, as well as her long career in public service, demonstrates her dedication and commitment to community concerns and enhancing the quality of life for those in Colorado, the Rocky Mountain region and across the country. Serving as a Public Affairs Specialist at DOE's Grand Junction Office since January 25, 1993, Ms. Berry consistently has demonstrated a high level of performance. At this position she successfully engaged the communities surrounding DOE's Fernald and Mound Sites in Ohio and the Rocky Flats Site near Denver, Colorado in the establishment of Local Stakeholder Organizations, which provide opportunities for the public to comment on and be involved with the ongoing monitoring of the cleanup at these former nuclear weapons production facilities. She also helped develop a successful transition strategy for public participation at DOE sites that are slated for closure. Ms. Berry also was instrumental in establishing one of the first DOE Site Specific Advisory Boards (SSAB) in November 1993 for the Monticello uranium mill tailings remediation site in Monticello, Utah. She developed the application for perspective members and interviewed applicants; managed the budget for the duration of the SSAB; provided DOE-Headquarters with required reports and action; organized meetings, was the liaison between the members, DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the State of Utah; followed up on action items; was responsible in attempting to meet diversity requirements, and resolved issues of concern. Ms. Berry also was instrumental in disbanding the SSAB when the mission was completed. Her involvement with the community of Monticello continued for six years. Also at the Monticello site, Ms. Berry organized, developed and implemented the plan to transfer DOE property located at the Monticello site to the City of Monticello for recreational use. Utilizing the General Services Administration and National Park Service's ``Lands to Park'' Program, the property was successfully transferred in June 2000. Ms. Berry also supported numerous projects assigned to DOE's Grand Junction Office. During her tenure, she developed public participation plans and established outstanding relationships with numerous stakeholder groups, including congressional, state and local officials, tribal members, special interest groups, citizen's advisory boards, the media, and individual citizens. In order to successfully interface with the multiple contacts she enjoyed, Ms. Berry possessed a broad technical knowledge of all of the assigned projects. Ms. Berry also organized and conducted numerous workshops and conferences for DOE's Grand Junction Office. Most notably, four Long Term Stewardship Workshops were held, each with 225 to 300 attendees. And, she organized a Stakeholders Conference on Worker Transition and Legacy Benefits for DOE's Office of Legacy Management. This effort was especially important and noteworthy. She recognized, as do many at DOE, that providing health care and benefits for people who worked at DOE sites--sites that involved the handling of hazardous materials--is an important obligation that we as a nation owe to these workers. Her attention to detailed plans has assured successful and well-attended events and helped promote policies to address worker transition issues and public involvement regarding the long-term integrity of cleanup and closure of DOE sites. Ms. Berry has been the recipient of at least 16 various awards, namely Special Act Awards, Individual Incentive Awards, and Group Awards during her tenure with DOE's Grand Junction Office. Before joining DOE in 1993, she served as the Western Slope Office Director for Colorado Senator Tim Wirth. At this position, she helped constituents address issues and concerns with federal programs and policies. Prior to working for Senator Wirth, she performed the same service to citizens of Colorado's Western Slope in Representative Ray Kogovsek's office when he represented the 3rd Congressional District in Colorado. Ms. Berry's work at all of these offices underscores her deep commitment to service for the communities she has served. What's especially impressive has been her personal touch--the way that she interacts with people so that they are included in policy decisions and treated with seriousness and respect. In so doing, she has been effective in getting the job done and involving the public and various stakeholders. Her accomplishments and style are models for the type of quality in public service that we all can seek to emulate. I am sure that Ms. Berry will remain active in issues of importance to communities along Colorado's Western Slope or wherever life takes her. I wish her much future success.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 35th anniversary of Cleo Parker Robinson Dance and its founder, Cleo Parker Robinson. Cleo Parker Robinson uses dance as a bridge to unite diverse communities and overcome cultural, age, class, and language barriers. A night watching a Cleo Parker Robinson Dance performance is simply unforgettable, making it a well-known gem in the Colorado arts community. Cleo Parker Robinson Dance has been an essential part of the Colorado arts community since its inception in 1970. The organization includes a professional company, a year-round dance school, an International Summer Dance Institute, and a Cleo Parker Robinson Dance Theater. In addition, CPRD created two programs, Season of Schools and Project Self Discovery, which focus on introducing dance to low-income and at-risk students. Season of Schools serves Denver Public Schools students and students from surrounding school districts with performances and workshops, introducing students to dance as an outlet of expression. Project Self Discovery, funded through a government grant, provides intensive dance study to at-risk youth as an alternative to gangs, drugs and delinquency. Cleo Parker Robinson Dance has spent the last 35 years working to strengthen communities in some of Denver's poorest neighborhoods. Cleo Parker Robinson utilizes the power of dance to find the commonalities that unify communities. Her leadership and dedication shows that with hard work we can continue to move towards a society that flourishes from our cultural diversity. I want to commend Cleo Parker Robinson Dance for its accomplishments over the past 35 years and for continuing to bring beautiful, unique and innovative forms of dance to eager audiences around the world.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Larry Ernst, of Boulder, Colorado, for his recent nomination as an IBM Fellow, the company's highest and most prestigious technical honor. IBM Fellows are selected for sustained and distinguished technical achievements in engineering, programming and technology. There have only been 185 Fellows in the past 42 years of the company's existence, and currently there are only 58 active employees who share this distinction out of an astounding 325,000 employees worldwide. IBM Fellows provide innovative solutions not only valuable for the future of this massive company, but also for the entire world. Fellows such as Mr. Ernst have developed some of the most useful products and applied technologies the industry and computer users have ever seen. Larry Ernst has led the strategic definition and implementation of critical technologies for the Printing Systems Division, and his work in the area of print and image quality has been the foundation for many new products. Already, Mr. Ernst holds nine issued patents, serves as the patent coordinator for the division, and has been named an IBM Master Inventor for his works. Larry Ernst joins two other distinguished Boulder residents, Ernest Booch and Joan Mitchell, as IBM Fellows. I am proud to have three out of the 58 active IBM Fellows in Colorado's Second Congressional District. It is quite a compliment to the men and women of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Larry Ernst and in wishing him continued success in all future endeavors as an IBM Fellow.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am very proud of my constituents in Boulder, Colorado, for their unsurpassed commitment to a clean environment. Indeed, Boulder's exceptionally clean air and water make the Second District of Colorado a very special place. When a company can provide jobs and be a real contributor to the economy of Boulder, and it can do so in way that shows the utmost respect for the environment, the citizens of my district are doubly fortunate. Lexmark International, Inc. is just such a company. One of the world's largest manufacturers of printers and developers of printing solutions, Lexmark has a large facility in Boulder that has recently achieved ISO (International Standardization Organization) 14001 certification for its environmental management system. ISO 14001 is the world's most recognized environmental management system framework, helping organizations better manage their impact on the environment and continually improve their environmental performance. Lexmark employees worked for years to achieve this important certification. Such certifications do not come easily, and Lexmark's employees in Boulder are to be commended for their commitment to pollution prevention and for the overall environmental ethic that enabled them to achieve this important milestone. This achievement is only the most recent environmental award received by the Lexmark facility in Boulder. In 2003, the city of Boulder awarded its PACE (Partners for a Clean Environment) Pioneer Award to Lexmark. This award is given annually to the business best exemplifying the goals of the PACE program. For almost a decade beginning in 1993, Lexmark participated in the Colorado Governor's Pollution Prevention Challenge, and the plant also received the U.S. EPA's 33/50 award for toxic chemical use reduction in the early-to-mid 1990s. In all, the record this facility has established for well over a decade is remarkable. My hat is off to the employees at the Lexmark facility in Boulder who share such an obviously genuine and profound commitment to environmental protection. I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in commending Lexmark for this notable achievement.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my condolences to the Barrett family on the death of Carol Barrett, the mother of my staff member Jennifer Barrett. Jennifer and her family came up with some reflections on Carol's life that I would like to submit for the Record. I know that Carol died from complications related to Parkinson's disease, an illness I am all too familiar with, since my father also lost a long struggle with Parkinson's in 1998. I continue my fight for a cure for Parkinson's as co-chair of the Bi- Cameral Caucus on Parkinson's Disease. The fight is too big for one individual, but working together I believe we can make great strides. What we achieve as a community will impact medical research, health care delivery, and millions of people throughout the country and the world. Continuing our search for a cure for Parkinson's won't save Carol's life, but it will go a long way to honor her memory. Reflections on the Life of Carol Thomae Barrett Carol was born November 12, 1938 in Boston to parents with strong ties to their Scandinavian and German heritage. Family ties were strengthened further when two Thomae brothers married two Larson sisters. Carol had no siblings, but her two cousins, Ken and Bob Thomae were very close to her, and became her brothers. The families attended the Lutheran church in Dorchester and much of Carol's social life was connected with the youth activities of the church. An old photograph shows her as the Lucia Girl, chosen from the entire Boston area. She excelled in her academic studies, making it possible for her to attend Girl's Latin School in Boston, and subsequently to be admitted to Wellesley College as an English major. A blind date for a day of skiing with a Harvard medical student named Peter changed her life, and Peter's, forever. They were married during their respective final years in school and moved into their first home, a fifth floor walk-up apartment in Boston. Peter's princely wages of $60 per month as a resident in Internal Medicine at the Massachusetts General Hospital did not stretch very far, and Carol became the bread-winner by combining a teaching assistant position with a Masters program offered by Tufts University. Subsequently, her work as an elementary school teacher in Boston and in Bethesda, Maryland, provided most of our small family's support. The family expanded in 1963 with the arrival of John in 1963, in Bethesda, where Peter spent three years in research at the National Institutes of Health. Following an additional year in Boston, marked by the arrival of Jennifer, the family headed for the Wild West, where Peter continued his medical training, and then joined the faculty at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Gastroenterology in 1967. In the early years of marriage, Carol and Peter moved five times in a span of seven years, and they were very glad to move into a home in Palos Verdes where they could stay for a longer time. That home was located at 29377 Quailwood Drive, and that was 38 years ago. The third young Barrett, Anna, joined the family in 1969. Carol was an active participant in community affairs, particularly with the Peninsula Committee for the Philharmonic, and became its President in 1990-91. She enjoyed her involvement in the PTA, various tennis leagues, book club, and numerous family trips to Montana and Colorado. Vacations often involved visiting Carol's family in the Boston area, or welcoming them into the home in Palos Verdes. Carol's grandmother, ``Great Nana,'' was born in Sweden and had never traveled by air until she visited the Barretts. She enjoyed her visit greatly and became a ``regular''. Carol always considered her most important roles to be in the home. Her consistent support was vital to Peter's success in his medical career, and was equally important in providing a wonderful home for their three children. She was their counselor, teacher, booster, and most of all, she was their mother. True to a lifelong pattern, on her last shopping trip she bought two dresses ``for the girls.'' Parkinson's disease was first diagnosed eleven years ago, but Carol was determined to continue with her many activities as long as possible. Initially she was very successful in these efforts, but the past several years brought increasing difficulty and frustration as her Parkinson's worsened. Nevertheless, because of the steadfast support of her large circle of friends, she was able to continue and to enjoy most of her social activities. Carol's final trip consisted of a series of wonderful visits with family and friends. It included a visit with daughter Jennifer in Washington, with tours of the Capitol and White House; a day spent with life-long friends near Boston; several days of Harvard and Wellesley reunion activities; and a visit with her cousins in suburban Boston. At this point, new health problems developed which resulted in hospitalization at the Massachusetts General Hospital, the hospital where she was born. All of her family were with her when she finally slipped away. Life for her family and friends will not be the same without her.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, many of us have serious concerns about the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. New London and the potential effects on private property owners from local governments' exercise of the power of eminent domain. Because of those concerns, I joined in voting for H. Res. 340, expressing disapproval of that decision, which was passed by the House last month. However, as I said then, although I agreed with the resolution's statement that Congress could seek to ``address through legislation any abuses of eminent domain by State and local government;'' I think we should be reluctant to take actions to curb what some--perhaps even a temporary majority--in Congress might consider improper actions by a State or local government. The States, through their legislatures or in some cases by direct popular vote, can put limits on the use of eminent domain by their agencies or local governments. I think this would be the best way to address potential abuses, and I think we in Congress should consider taking action to impose our ideas of proper limits only as a last resort. So, I am glad to note that in Colorado discussion is already underway regarding possible changes to our laws that would modify the scope of eminent domain authority available to local governments. A good example of that discussion is a recent editorial in Grand Junction's Daily Sentinel, which notes with approval a proposal for an amendment to the Colorado constitution but points out that its proponents should be cautious in their approach. I think the editorial's points are well taken. I attach its full text and commend it to the attention of all our colleagues. [From Grand Junction (CO) Daily Sentinel, July 21, 2005] Voters Could Check Eminent-Domain Abuse State Rep. Al White, R-Winter Park, is joining a host of state government officials around the country who want tougher state rules on government's use of eminent domain to condemn private property. Efforts are being pushed in at least 25 states in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month that said the city of New London, Conn., could condemn homes in an older middle-class neighborhood and turn them over to private developers for razing to build condos, a hotel, athletic clubs and other amenities. Millions of Americans were understandably angered by the ruling. It opens the possibility that any home or small business can be condemned if some developer can demonstrate that his plans can produce more revenue for local government. White says he intends to push a measure in the Legislature for a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit local government from taking land for private gain. If it doesn't pass the Legislature, he said he will mount a petition drive to get it on the 2006 ballot. White's concerns for the rights of private property owners are well taken. But White should be cautious about overreaching. There are some cases where it may be legitimate for government to condemn private property and allow another private entity to benefit from it. Even before this June's ruling, the Supreme Court had long held that governments can use eminent domain to condemn private property and turn it over to other private developers in order to eliminate blight. Although ``blight'' may sometimes be poorly defined, eliminating health and safety issues associated with severely run-down or neglected properties meets a legitimate public need. White's proposal or any other aimed at reducing the potential for eminent-domain abuse in Colorado must recognize that public need and provide clearly worded conditions under which it could be allowed.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report on the ``Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users'' (TEA-LU). While the funding provided in the bill will not meet all the needs in Colorado's Second Congressional District--let alone those of the rest of the State or the country as a whole--it does provide resources for many needed improvements. The conference report will help our State address challenges that face Colorado as a result of a decade of rapid expansion in the northwest Denver suburbs and mountain and resort communities. Without the passage of this essential long term extension critical transportation and infrastructure needs for Colorado and the Nation will continue to be ignored. This bill will also fuel job creation. I am committed to continue working with the Colorado delegation, local communities and the Transportation Committee to secure essential Federal funding to get people and goods from one place to another with a focus on transit and other alternatives and improve current modes of Colorado's transportation network.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, the June 23rd decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. New London has raised concern about the potential abuse of the power of eminent domain by local governments. I share that concern, which is why I voted for the resolution (H. Res. 340) expressing the House's disagreement with that decision. Congress may consider proposals for even stronger legislative responses. I think that is completely appropriate, and well may support legislation on this subject. At the same time, however, I think it is important to remember that the primary responsibility in this area rests with the States and their local governments. As I said during debate on the resolution passed by the House, while (in the words of the resolution) ``Congress maintains the prerogative and reserve the right to address through legislation any abuses of eminent domain by State and local government,'' Congress can only take such action in ways that are themselves consistent with the Constitution. Further, I think we should be reluctant to take actions to curb what some--perhaps even a temporary majority--in Congress might consider improper actions by a State or local government. Thy States, through their legislatures or in some cases by direct popular vote, can put limits on the use of eminent domain by their agencies or local governments. I think this would be the best way to address potential abuses, and I think we in Congress should consider taking action to impose our ideas of proper limits only as a last resort. That point was well made in a recent column by State Senator Lois Tochtrop, with whom I had the honor to serve when I was in the Colorado legislature. In that column, Senator Tochtrop writes ``There's only one piece of `good news' for Colorado citizens in the recent Supreme Court decision. The high court left it up to state legislatures to control city bureaucrats bent on turning your home or business into a new strip mall. Here in Colorado, legislators have lots to do. . . . I will reintroduce legislation in the upcoming session to stop cities from abusing the power of eminent domain by giving corporate welfare to retailers while the taxpayers pay the bills.'' I commend Senator Tochtrop for her leadership on this important issue. For the information of our colleagues, here is the complete text of her recent column: [From the (Boulder, Colorado) Daily Camera--July 14, 2005] State Must Protect Property Rights (By Sen. Lois Tochtrop) Founding father James Madison: ``Government (is) instituted to protect property of every sort. That alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.'' United States Supreme Court: ``Never mind!'' You've heard the bad news. If Wal-Mart or other big boxes want to take your home or business for a new store, that's OK by the U.S. Supreme Court. All big developers must do is convince property tax hungry city officials that the public will benefit. As we've seen in Colorado, that doesn't take much convincing. Time was cities used eminent domain to condemn private property only for ``public use'' like roads, libraries or parks. Now, the Supreme Court says it's constitutional for government to take your property to build that Wal-Mart or Walgreen's, as long as there is some ``public benefit.'' That promised benefit is the torrent of tax money that will supposedly flow into city coffers from the new economic development. Allowing municipalities to ``take'' private property and give it to another private entity is wrong and unjustified even with the recent Supreme Court ruling. The original intent of eminent domain was only to be used for public good, not to allow cities to condemn property to increase their tax base by putting in big boxes at the expense of mom-and-pop businesses, which are the backbone of America. Retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissent that with ``the banner of economic development . . . nothing is to prevent the state from replacing . . . any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory.'' The bottom line: Your home isn't your castle anymore. It's prime development land for a Wal-Mart Super Center. There's only one piece of ``good news'' for Colorado citizens in the recent Supreme Court decision. The high court left it up to state legislatures to control city bureaucrats bent on turning your home or business into a new strip mall. Here in Colorado, legislators have lots to do. From legislative hearing rooms to constituent living rooms, Colorado property owners are crying out for relief. I have heard testimony on the abuses of eminent domain from dozens of small businesses in Aurora whose property the city wants for ``mixed use development'' to complement the new medical complex at Fitzsimons. I listened to testimony from dozens of citizens who battled Arvada's plan to condemn a small lake for a Wal-Mart parking lot. I listened to a pioneer family in Westminster that is losing its homestead to make way for economic development. The losers in the battle over eminent domain aren't only the folks you read about in the newspaper or see on TV trying valiantly to protect their private property. Colorado taxpayers are big losers too, because cities often grant developers a big property tax break called ``tax increment financing.'' Tax increment financing is given to developers to build big boxes after the municipalities ``take'' the property from rightful private owners under the guise of urban renewal. Just last year, Colorado taxpayers had to ``infill'' more than $18 million just to school districts because tax- increment financing robbed schools of tax money that the city gave away to developers. Who pays for that ``infill''? Taxpayers, of course. Colorado taxpayers wind up subsidizing corporate giants like Wal-Mart after cities take private property from owners under the guise of urban renewal and economic development. The only economic development is usually to the big box's bottom line. In 1999 the Legislature passed legislation which somewhat limits cities' power of eminent domain, but it does not go far enough to protect private property rights, as evidenced by local land grabs. Since then, I have introduced bills that removed ``economic'' from the definition of urban renewal and barred municipalities from declaring agricultural land ``blighted.'' Lobbyists for cities and powerful land developers stopped both of those bills. The constitutional private property rights of Colorado citizens must be protected. I will reintroduce legislation in the upcoming session to stop cities from abusing the power of eminent domain by giving corporate welfare to retailers while the taxpayers pay the bills. Protecting private property rights will take more than new legislation. Every citizen must help. If you don't like the idea of a city taking private property so Wal-Mart can put in a new Super-Center, tell your city council that's not the way your city should be doing business. Lois Tochtrop represents District 24 in the Colorado Senate.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3045, the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, DR-CAFTA. Deciding how to vote on this has not been easy, but ultimately I believe that the bad in the agreement outweighs the good. I definitely believe free trade brings benefits, but in this case I question who would get those benefits. I agree that open markets have helped lift up the lives of people in many countries of the world. But I am also alarmed about the growing economic inequality within and between countries. Unless free trade is also fair trade, we risk lifting up the few to the detriment of the many. I think that an improved commercial relationship with the Dominican Republic and the five Central American countries could benefit our economy and U.S. farmers, workers, and manufacturers. But I am concerned about a number of provisions of DR-CAFTA. The agreement will help some U.S. agricultural industries, services markets, and high technology, chemical, medical and scientific equipment companies, among others. But it will harm other agricultural markets, and could have a detrimental impact on small Central American farmers as well. We ought to be encouraging rural economic development in this part of the world, not undercutting it. The most problematic aspect of DR-CAFTA is that the administration failed to incorporate internationally recognized labor standards. Nor does the agreement clearly require any country to maintain and enforce a set of basic environmental regulations. America's interests are not simply about the bottom line. The U.S. should also be concerned about maintaining and enhancing the high mark set by American workers. While expanded trade is important to this country and the world, it will only be beneficial to a broad range of people in our Nation and abroad if it is carefully shaped to include basic standards and adequately protect the rights of workers and the environment. This agreement does not meet that test. DR-CAFTA would also allow foreign investors to challenge our laws and regulations before international tribunals, bypassing domestic courts, if they believe U.S. laws on labor, environmental protections, and public health and safety reduce the value of their investments. The U.S. has already spent millions defending our laws from NAFTA, which includes a similar provision. Foreign companies have sued the U.S. over California's ban of MTBE, a California law regulating harmful gold mining practices, and the Agriculture Department's decision to close the border to Canadian beef due to concerns about mad cow disease. DR-CAFTA also creates a challenge to the safety of the American food supply because it is silent on the issue of imported goods meeting the rigorous food safety and sanitary rules of the United States Department of Agriculture. This agreement takes a step backward in our efforts to provide the American consumer with the safest food possible. Finally, the agreement includes a provision precluding generic pharmaceutical products from obtaining regulatory marketing approval for a 5-8 year period if approval has been granted for a brand name drug in that market. Especially since low-cost generics are already available in the DR-CAFTA countries, this provision will only serve to make drugs unavailable and unaffordable for most Central Americans, who are suffering in great numbers from HIV/AIDS and untreated diabetes, among other maladies. While market access for U.S. goods is important, we shouldn't be in the business of potentially undermining a country's ability to provide prescription drugs to its citizens. As part of a long-term strategy to strengthen the American economy, I have supported a number of agreements to expand access to foreign markets for exports from our nation's farmers and businesses. But DR- CAFTA is one I cannot support. I don't want this country to miss out on economic opportunities, but the problems with this agreement are real, and I don't believe this agreement will create the opportunities its proponents have touted. In the end, our progress together has to be about raising, and not lowering wages, reducing and not adding to the world's poverty, making more ``haves'' and fewer ``have-nots.'' I do believe in actively shaping globalization, not passively closing our doors. Although I cannot support DR-CAFTA today, I remain committed to this activist course and hope the Administration will present us with an agreement that deserves our support.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this conference report--but only because it includes an essential immediate increase in funding for veterans health care. This has been a long time coming. Last September, many of us sought to provide a $2.5 billion increase over the Bush Administration's budget for veterans' health care. Earlier this year, Members on our side of the aisle made an unsuccessful effort to add $1.2 billion for veterans' health care to the emergency supplemental appropriations for military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. And over the last month, the Republican leadership led successful efforts to block consideration of amendments to add the needed funds for VA health care. Things finally changed when the Bush Administration finally acknowledged a $1 billion shortfall in veterans' health care for FY 2005, which had been well known since spring. When that happened, the Senate added $1.5 billion in supplemental funding to this bill because it was the most convenient legislative vehicle--and the conferees wisely agreed to retain it in the conference report. This additional $1.5 billion is essential if we are to make any claim to meeting our moral obligation to America's veterans and returning soldiers. Because of its inclusion, I will vote for the conference report, even though the rest of the conference report does not deserve to pass. Except for the veterans' health funding, this conference report falls short across the board. It once again fails to provide the authorized funding for the payments-in-lieu-of-taxes program, shortchanging the counties and other local governments in Colorado and across the country for whom these ``PILT'' payments are so important. It does not provide enough funds to enable the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, or the Forest Service to properly manage the federal lands for which they are responsible. And it inadequately funds many other agencies as well, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency, which will be cut by about 3 percent from this fiscal year. I am particularly concerned about deep cuts to EPA's state grants (down nearly $400 million from fiscal 2005), which support environmental protection programs through grants to State, local and tribal governments, and a $24 million shortfall for EPA science and technology research. Of course, Colorado will benefit from funding earmarked for projects in several parts of the state. But the needs of many communities will go unmet, and opportunities to acquire high-priority lands such as those in the Beaver Brook watershed in Clear Creek County will be missed. Finally, the bill includes extensive legislative provisions authorizing the Forest Service to sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise convey lands that the Forest Service identifies as ``administrative sites''--including forest headquarters, ranger stations, research stations, or laboratories, among many other kinds of sites. Mr. Speaker, this part of the conference report originated in the Senate. Inclusion of such legislative provisions in a general appropriation bill is contrary to the House rules, because it properly should be handled by the authorizing committee--the Committee on Resources--in an orderly fashion that allows for hearings and the consideration of amendments. It would have been far better for the House conferees to have rejected it and enabled our committee to consider it in that fashion. However, I want to express my appreciation for the fact that the conferees did make very important changes in the Senate-passed language. In particular, I am glad that they included an explicit requirement for the Forest Service to consult with affected local governments and to provide public notice regarding their plans for disposing of properties covered by this part of the conference report. And I think that excluding visitor centers and potential inholdings as well as lands providing access to other lands or waters were valuable changes, as was the requirement that the Forest Service provide advance notice to Congress of planned disposals and the reaffirmation that environmental analysis of proposed disposals include consideration of the ``no action'' alternative as required by NEPA. While this legislation will remain in effect only through fiscal 2008, the statement of managers clearly signals an expectation that Congress will be asked to renew it or perhaps even make it permanent. If that should occur, I will do all I can to make sure that the Resources Committee is responsible for considering such legislation and that it is not accomplished by inclusion of legislation in an appropriations measure.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot support this legislation. There is nothing I would rather vote for than a balanced energy bill that sets us on a forward-looking course--one that acknowledges that this country is overly dependent on a single energy source--fossil fuels--to the detriment of our environment, our national security, and our economy. But at a time of sky-rocketing oil prices, this report doesn't do what it needs to do--help us balance our energy portfolio and increase the contributions of alternative energy sources to our energy mix. The process of developing the conference report is much improved from last year's contentious debate. Senate and House conferees worked together cooperatively and were able to compromise on a number of provisions and bridge difficult differences of opinion. I believe Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell and on the Senate side, Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman, have done a good job in this respect. The conference report itself is also an improvement over the bill passed by the House earlier this year. It includes an extension of the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit for another 2 years, which will take us through the end of 2007. This is very good news. The report also includes clean energy bonds provisions from the Senate bill which will enable electric cooperatives to invest in renewable generation. It also removes the methyl bromide tertiary-butyl ether, MTBE, liability waiver that would have let industry off the hook. It's true that the conference report does provide a ``backdoor immunity'' that could derail many legal claims by denying communities and states the right to be heard in state forums. But I believe that the conferees took a big step forward by dropping the liability waiver. On energy efficiency, the conference report goes beyond the House bill in establishing new energy efficiency standards for 15 products. It also includes numerous energy efficiency tax provisions for alternative fuel vehicles, energy efficient appliances and new and existing homes, among others, provisions contained in the Energy Efficiency Cornerstone Act that I introduced with my colleague Rep. Zach Wamp and others. Electricity provisions are strengthened--not only does the conference report include new standards for grid reliability, but it also includes consumer protections in electric markets, such as new merger review, a prohibition on market manipulation, improved market transparency, among others. These protections are especially important given that the bill repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act, PUHCA, which restricts the ownership and operations of power companies and their ability to control energy prices. Another way in which the conference report has improved on the House bill is its treatment of oil shale. This is a subject of particular concern to Coloradans, because Colorado has the most significant amounts of oil shale--and also the most experience with oil shale fever. In Colorado, we have had several bouts of that syndrome. The last one started during the 1970s energy crisis and ended abruptly on ``Black Sunday'' in 1982. That was when Exxon announced it was pulling out of the Colony shale project, an event that left an impact crater from the Western Slope to downtown Denver. There followed an exodus of other companies that had been working on oil shale--which led to an echoing exodus of jobs and of Coloradans who had nowhere else to turn. The House bill would have required the Interior Department to set up a new leasing program for commercial development of oil shale, with final regulations to be in place by the end of next year. In other words, it called for a crash program to meet a short, arbitrary deadline. In the Resources Committee, I tried to change that. An amendment I offered would not have barred oil shale development. Instead, it would have said that before we leap again, we should take a look and have a clear idea of where we are apt to land. Under my amendment, the Department of the Interior would be told to prepare regulations for a new oil shale leasing program--and to get them finished ``promptly'' after finishing the analysis required by NEPA and the regular process for developing new federal regulations. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership of the Resources Committee opposed my amendment, and so it was not adopted. The result is that that part of the House bill was much uglier than it should have been. The oil shale part of the conference report, while not necessarily a thing of real beauty, is definitely better. It calls for a programmatic environmental impact statement as the first step, and requires issuance of final regulations for a new commercial leasing program only after that statement has been completed. Further, it requires the Interior Department to consult with the Governor of Colorado (and the governors of other relevant states) and other interested parties in order to determine the level of support for development of oil shale (or tar sands) resources, and provides that leasing will then occur only if there is sufficient interest and support. This is a much better way to proceed than through the kind of crash program called for in the House- passed bill. And, while I think the need for a new oil shale task force or a new office within DOE is doubtful at best, the conference report's provisions related to experimental leases are sensible and worthwhile. There were a few good things in the House bill that I am glad are retained in the conference report--after all, in a 1,725-page bill, there are bound to be some good provisions, but in this case they are far outweighed by the bad. For example, I support most of the provisions developed by the Science Committee, and I commend Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon for their bipartisan approach. In particular, I'm pleased that the Science Committee bill included generous authorization levels for renewable energy and energy efficiency R&D. As Co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, this funding is very important to me. I am also pleased that the conference report includes the Clean Green School Bus Act, a bill that Chairman Boehlert and I drafted that authorizes grants to help school districts replace aging diesel vehicles with clean, alternative fuel buses. H.R. 6 also includes provisions from legislation I introduced on distributed power, which would direct the Secretary of Energy to develop and implement a strategy for research, development, and demonstration of distributed power energy systems. Unfortunately, though, as a whole this conference report--like the bills we've debated twice before--basically retains the status quo and does little to provide solutions to the real energy problems facing this country. This conference report provides oil and gas companies massive forgiveness of royalty payments. It exempts industry from requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act when they inject harmful chemicals into the ground during drilling. It exempts oil and gas construction sites from storm water runoff regulations under the Clean Water Act. It authorizes up to $1.5 billion in new subsidies to the oil industry for ultra-deep oil drilling and exploration. It establishes an exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act for oil and gas development activities. Of the bill's total $14.6 billion in tax incentives, $9.3 billion (or 64 percent) is for traditional energy sources such as oil, natural gas, and nuclear power. The oil and gas industries are getting these massive subsidies from the taxpayer at the same time that their profits have never been higher. Meanwhile, renewables and energy efficiency technologies are allocated $5.3 billion, or just 26 percent of the total incentives in the bill. And then there are all the things the bill would not do. It would not increase vehicle fuel economy standards, which have been frozen since 1996. Raising CAFE standards is the single biggest step we can take to reduce oil consumption, since about half of the oil used in the U.S. goes into the gas tanks of our passenger vehicles. This conference report avoids the whole question of mandatory action on climate change, excluding even the toothless Senate-passed resolution that recognized the need for immediate action by Congress to implement mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions. It also does not include the Renewable Portfolio Standard, RPS, part of the Senate-passed bill, which would require utilities to generate 10 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020. Colorado is uniquely positioned to take advantage of alternative energy opportunities, such as wind and sun. Colorado's voters approved Amendment 37 last year, a state RPS, which is making a difference in our energy supply. But a Federal RPS would yield numerous rewards in the long-term for the whole country, including increased energy independence and security, economic development opportunities in depressed communities, maintaining a competitive advantage internationally, protecting our environment, and helping our farmers develop long-term income sources. The absence of an RPS in this conference report is a serious setback for forward-thinking energy policy. Most importantly, according to analyses conducted by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, this energy bill will neither lower gas prices nor reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, with foreign imports predicted to increase from 58 percent to 68 percent in the next 20 years. Coloradans on average are already on average $2.25 for a gallon of regular gas. This bill will do nothing to bring those prices down. I don't always agree with President Bush. But I think he is absolutely right about one thing--at $55 a barrel, we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. Instead, we need a strategy to wean our Nation from its dependence on fossil fuels, especially foreign oil. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we need a plan in place to increase our energy security. Thirteen percent of the twenty million barrels of oil we consume each day comes from the Persian Gulf. In fact, fully 30 percent of the world's oil supply comes from this same volatile and politically unstable region of the world. Yet with only 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves, we are not in a position to solve our energy vulnerability by drilling at home. This bill does nothing to tackle this fundamental problem. For every step it takes to move us away from our oil/carbon-based economy, it takes two in the opposite direction. I only wish my colleagues in the House could understand that a vision of a clean energy future is not radical science fiction but is instead based on science and technology that exists today. Given the magnitude of the crisis ahead, we can surely put more public investment behind new energy sources that will free us from our dependence on oil. Earlier this year, President Bush spoke at the opening of the Abraham Lincoln Museum in Springfield, Illinois and attempted to draw parallels between his goal of expanding freedom in the world and Lincoln's effort to expand freedom in the U.S. I have some questions about that comparison, but I do think it is good to consider Lincoln's example when we debate public policy. In fact, I wish President Bush and the Republicans would draw a few more parallels to Lincoln in their approach to energy policy--because, as that greatest of Republican Presidents said, ``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present. Our present is piled high with difficulties. We must think anew and act anew--then we will save our country.'' And while we are not engaged in a civil war, our excessive dependence on fossil energy is a pressing matter of national security. We have an energy security crisis. We need to think anew to devise an energy security strategy that will give future generations of Americans an economy less dependent on oil and fossil fuels. Unfortunately, too much of this bill reflects not just a failure but an absolute refusal to think anew. Provision after provision reflects a stubborn insistence on old ideas--more tax subsidies, more royalty giveaways, more restrictions on public participation, more limits on environmental reviews--and a hostility to the search for new approaches. Maybe we could have afforded such a mistake in the past. But now the stakes are too high--because, as I said, energy policy isn't just an economic issue, it's a national security issue. America's dependence on imported oil poses a risk to our homeland security and economic well- being. Unfortunately, this conference report does not think anew and is not adequate to the challenges of this stormy present. For that reason, I cannot vote for it.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I'm reluctantly voting against H.R. 5, which would limit medical malpractice awards. I am not opposed to considering legislation that would do something to respond to real problems. But I do not think this bill merits that description. In fact, I think the vote today has more to do with politics than with policy--and if I had any doubts on that point, they ended when the Republican leadership refused to permit any amendments at all to be considered. Stifling debate is not the way to develop good policy. As in the past, the bill's supporters argue that unless the tort laws are changed, doctors will not be able to afford malpractice insurance and so will give up providing medical care. And, again, opponents say the bill would do nothing to affect insurance rates. I think we're beating a dead horse. Both sides have dug in and aren't willing to compromise. In the meantime, we aren't doing anything to reform our medical liability system and we aren't doing anything to make health care more affordable and accessible for Americans. Our system is inherently adversarial and we've continued this finger- pointing game and done nothing to improve patient safety and health care access, which is what we're really talking about here. I think we need a system that is non-punitive and encourages openness and improvement so that doctors can report medical errors without fear of being sued. This will help us understand medical errors and improve procedures and patient safety. Fewer medical errors will result in fewer medical malpractice suits, which in turn will help keep malpractice insurance rates and health care premiums down. That's why I have supported legislation to create a voluntary medical error reporting system under which patient safety organizations, on a confidential basis, would receive information on reported errors for analysis. They would then be expected to develop and disseminate evidence-based information to help providers implement changes in practice patterns that help to prevent future medical errors. In addition to that, I think we should explore ideas like alternate dispute resolution, no-fault systems, and medical courts. I also want to make it clear that I am not opposed in principle to capping damages. That has been done in Colorado and some other states, and I think there is evidence indicating that it can help keep health care costs down and keeps doctors accessible. However, I think this bill's low and arbitrary limits on damages will hurt those at the bottom of the income scale the most. Also, I don't think we should be shielding large and powerful HMOs and drug companies from liability. So, I cannot support the bill as it stands. Mr. Speaker, ultimately this issue is about health care access and patient safety. If we aren't going to compromise, I hope we'd start thinking outside the box on how to end the logjam. I offer these ideas as a way to get there, because we aren't going to get there from where we are today.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill today that will resolve a conflict between the Department of Commerce and a property owner along the perimeter of the Department of Commerce campus in Boulder, Colorado. In 2004, the Department of Commerce determined that a security fence needed to be constructed around the Boulder campus that houses labs for both the National Institute for Standards and Technology, NIST, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. In preparation for the fence the current access road would need to be rerouted. This road is also the only access to the Oak Park Medical Center, that abuts the Department of Commerce property. NIST granted an easement to the medical center to allow access to the facility through the Boulder Campus. Current plans to open a new entrance to the campus will result in the closing of access to the medical center. Significant discussions have occurred between the Oak Park Medical Center property owner and the Department of Commerce, principally through NIST. However, no compromise has been reached to provide alternative access to the medical center. The Department of Commerce contacted the Oak Park Medical Center property owner identifying an alternative access road which is unacceptable to both the owner and the tenants of the building. The property owner has expressed interest in selling the property to the Department of Commerce. Unlike most government property, the Boulder Campus was purchased by the Department of Commerce, rather than the U.S. General Services Administration. As a result, my bill authorizes the Department of Commerce to purchase the land. I have contacted the Department of Commerce urging the agency to administratively buy the property, however feel this legislation is helpful if an administrative solution is not worked out. I believe this is an equitable compromise, as the property owner is willing to sell the land, and NIST would have access to utilize the building. At the same time, plans for construction of the security fence will not need to be altered to provide access to the medical center. I have included a letter from the property owner expressing his support for this bill as well as the purchase of his property by the Department of Commerce. I consider this a friendly condemnation and urge a speedy passage of the bill by the House of Representatives. Boulder, CO, July 19, 2005. Re Proposed Legislative Bill for the Purchase of 385 South Broadway, Boulder, Colorado. Congressman Mark Udall, Mr. Doug Young, Turnpike Drive, Westminster, CO. Dear Congressman Udall and Mr. Young: I am in support of the legislation that would authorize and direct the federal government to purchase my property at 385 South Broadway, Boulder, Colorado, referred to in the proposed Bill as the ``Oak Park Medical Center.'' Please understand that my preference would be to retain ownership and for NIST to honor its existing easement granting access to and from the Oak Park Medical Center. However, if that agreement is to be unilaterally rescinded by NIST, then I feel that this legislation to purchase my property is the appropriate course of action. Thank you. Sincerely, Bruce Tenenbaum.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am today again introducing a bill to establish a process for orderly resolution of a problem that affects private property owners and the sound management of the Federal lands. What is involved are claims for rights-of-way under a provision of the Mining Law of 1866 that later was embodied in section 2477 of the Revised Statutes, and so is usually called R.S. 2477. It granted rights-of-way for the construction of highways across Federal lands not reserved for public uses. It was one of many 19th-century laws that assisted in the opening of the West for resource development and settlement. More than a century after its enactment, R.S. 2477 was repealed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, often called ``FLPMA,'' and was replaced with a modern and comprehensive process for establishing rights-of-way on Federal lands. However, FLPMA did not revoke valid existing rights established under R.S. 2477--and, unfortunately, it also did not set a deadline for people claiming to have such rights to file their claims. As a result, there is literally no way of knowing how many such claims might be filed or what lands might be affected--including not just Federal lands but also lands that once were Federal but now belong to other owners. But it is clear that R.S. 2477 claims could involve not only thousands of square miles of Federal lands but also many lands that now are private property or belong to the states or other entities. This is obviously a serious problem. It also is the way things used to be with regard to another kind of claim on Federal lands--mining claims under the Mining Law of 1872. However, that problem was resolved by section 314 of FLPMA, which gave people 3 years to record those claims and provided that any claim not recorded by the deadline would be deemed to have been abandoned. The courts have upheld that approach, and I think it should have been applied to R.S. 2477 claims as well. If it had been, R.S. 2477 would be a subject for historians, not a headache for our land managers or a nightmare for private property owners. I think that now, finally--more than a quarter of a century since it was repealed--the time has come to let R.S. 2477 sleep in peace. And that is the purpose of the bill I am introducing today. The bill is based on legislation proposed by the Secretary of the Interior in 1997, with changes and refinements based on extensive consultations with many interested persons and groups. The bill follows the sound example of FLPMA by providing that any R.S. 2477 claim for which a notice is not filed with the government within 4 years will be considered to have been relinquished and void. I think this is more than reasonable, because people interested in claiming rights-of-way under R.S. 2477 have had ample time to decide whether they want to file a claim. The bill also spells out what information a claimant is to provide, how claims are to be considered administratively, and the rules for judicial review of administrative decisions about claims. Recognizing the potential threats to private or other non-Federal landowners from R.S. 2477 claims, the bill spells out that claims involving their lands will be considered to have been abandoned when the lands were transferred out of federal ownership unless the claimant can establish by clear and convincing evidence that at the time of transfer there was a well-established right-of-way whose use for highway purposes was intended to be allowed to continue. And it applies a similar standard to claims involving lands used for national defense purposes as well as National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, wilderness and wilderness study areas, and other conservation areas. Since last year, my staff and I have discussed this subject with many people, representing a wide range of views. In particular, we worked closely with Commissioners and staff members from many of Colorado's counties. The results of those discussions are reflected throughout the bill, which differs from the previous version in many respects. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair, balanced bill. It gives anyone claiming to hold a valid right under R.S. 2477 ample opportunity to come forward and seek to have that claim upheld, with an opportunity to seek ultimate redress from the courts if necessary. At the same time, it gives private property owners and the American people--the owners of the Federal lands--assurance that the time will come when they will know what they own, without having to worry about new R.S. 2477 claims being made against their lands. In my opinion, such legislation is long overdue. I am attaching an outline of the main provisions of the bill. Outline of R.S. 2477 Bill Section 1 Section 1 provides a short title, has findings about the bill's background, and states its purpose, which is to provide certainty to affected private landowners, State and local governments, and the public by establishing a deadline for filing of claims for highway rights-of-way under R.S. 2477 and providing a process for consideration and resolution of such claims. Section 2 Section 2 defines key terms used in the bill. Section 3 Section 3 deals with the filing of notices of claims for rights-of-way based on R.S. 2477: Subsection (a) sets a deadline of 4 years after enactment for filing notices of claims. Subsection (b) specifies the information to be included in each notice of a claim. Subsection (c) deals with the places for filing notices of claims and other aspects of filing Subsection (d) requires publication and other steps to inform the public. Subsection (e) provides that failure to timely file a notice of a claim shall be deemed to constitute a relinquishment of any rights purported to have been acquired under R.S. 2477 related to that claim. This parallels Section 314 of FLPMA, which required recordation of unpatented mining claims. A claimant would have 3 years to file a lawsuit challenging the effect of this provision on a claim. Claims already subject to final determination by any Federal court or agency are exempt. Section 4 Section 4 addresses evidence to support claims. Subsection (a) sets a deadline of 6 year after filing a notice of a claim for a claimant to submit evidence in support of the claim. Subsection (b) requires submission of the following: 1) Name, address, and contact information of the claimant; 2) names and contact information of all persons or entities with property interests in lands affected by a claim, as shown on public records; 3) proof that notice of the claim has been provided to the persons and entities listed under (2); 4) identification of the entity that would have a property interest in the right-of-way for which a claim is being made; 5) a description of the highway on which the claim is based; 6) evidence of construction of a highway on the claimed route; 7) evidence that the claimed route constitutes a highway; 9) a statement regarding the availability of materials related to the claim; and 10) evidence that the claimed right-of-way traversed public land not reserved for other use at the time of construction of the highway Subsection (c) requires additional evidence to support claims involving certain lands: 1) for claims involving conservation lands, tribal lands, or defense lands, evidence that prior construction and continuing use of the lands for highway purposes were so open and notorious on and after the date on which the lands acquired such status that management of the lands by the Federal government was intended to be subject to continuation of their use for highway purposes; and 2) For claims involving lands no longer in Federal ownership, evidence that prior construction and continuing use of the lands for highway purposes were so open and notorious on the date that the lands were transferred from Federal ownership that the transfer was intended to be subject to the continued use of lands for highway purposes. Subsection (d) provides that a claimant who fails to submit all the required evidence to support a claim will have an additional 30 days to complete the submission, and that failure to submit all required evidence shall result in a determination that the claim is deemed abandoned and that any rights purported to be based on R.S. 2477 with respect to the claim have been relinquished. Such a determination is subject to judicial review pursuant to section 5(j). section 5 Section 5 addresses review of claims and determinations regarding them. Subsection (a) requires the authorized officer to review timely-submitted evidence in order to determine whether a claim should be considered presumptively valid. Subsection (b) provides that in all cases a claimant shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a claimed right-of-way was validly accepted under R.S. 2477. Subsection I requires the authorized officer to determine presumptively valid a claim involving private or other non- federal lands if the claimant has both met the burden of proof specified in subsection (b) and has also demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that when the lands passed from Federal ownership the prior construction and continuing use of the lands for highway purposes were so open and notorious that transfer of the lands was intended to be subject to their continued use for highway purposes. Subsection (d) requires the authorized officer to determine presumptively valid a claim involving conservation or defense lands if the claimant has both met the burden of proof specified in subsection (b) and has also demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that when the lands acquired that status the prior construction and continuing use of the lands for highway purposes were so open and notorious that management of the lands for conservation of defense purposes was intended to be subject to their continued use for highway purposes. Subsection (e) requires the authorized officer to determine presumptively valid a claim involving tribal lands if the claimant has both met the burden of proof specified in subsection (b) and has also demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that when the lands acquired that status the prior construction and continuing use of the lands for highway purposes were so open and notorious that it was intended that use of the lands for highway purposes would continue. Subsection (f) provides that if no portion of a claim involves former Federal lands, conservation lands, defense lands, or tribal lands, the authorized officer is to determine the claim presumptively valid if the claimant has met the burden of proof specified in subsection (b). Subsection (g) provides that if the authorized officer is unable to determine a claim to be presumptively valid, the officer will determine it invalid and that any rights purported to have been acquired under R.S. 2477 with respect to the claim have been relinquished and therefore no further administrative action on it is required. It also provides for notification of such a determination and specifies that such a notification constitutes final agency action subject to judicial review, and sets a 3-year statute of limitation for initiation of such review. Subsection (h) specifies the procedures to be followed if the authorized officer determines a claim is presumptively valid, provides an opportunity for filing an objection to such a determination, and allows a claimant to provide supplemental evidence to respond to such an objection. Subsection (i) provides for a public hearing if an objection is filed to a determination of presumptive validity, upon the request of either a claimant or an objector. Subsection (i) provides for review of information submitted by an objector to a finding of presumptive validity and for issuance of a determination of validity or invalidity. Subsection (k) specifies the information to be included in determinations of validity, specifies that such a determination is a final agency action subject to judicial review, and establishes a statute of limitation for initiation of such review. section 6 Section 6 includes a variety of administrative provisions: Subsection (a) prohibits charging a fee for filing of a claim by a State, County, or local government. Subsection (b) sets priorities for reviewing and processing claims: 1) claims filed by a State, County, or local government; 2) claims filed by non-governmental parties and involving private or other non-federal lands, conservation lands, defense lands, or tribal lands; and 3) other claims. Subsection (c) requires that to the extent practicable review of claims will be completed within a year after submission of evidence and requires periodic status reports on claims under review. Subsection (d) provides--1) authorized officers reviewing claims are to seek and consider the views of affected States, counties, local governments, tribes, Federal agencies, and the public; 2) authorized officers reviewing claims are responsible for coordinating with appropriate Federal agencies; 3) authorizing officers reviewing claims involving lands in Alaska will also seek the views and consult with any affected Native Corporation. Subsection (e) authorizes retention by the United States (with respect to claims involving conservation, defense, or tribal lands) or the owner of record (with respect to claims involving other lands) of exclusive possession or control of lands affected by claims held upon judicial review to be valid. The subsection specifies the United States or the owner of record shall seek to reach agreement with the claimant before exercising the authority to retain possession or control. Subsection (f) requires filing of surveys of R.S. 2477 highway rights-of-way determined to be valid; provides that failure to file such a survey within 5 years after final administrative determination of validity shall be deemed to be a relinquishment of any rights purported to have been acquired under R.S. 2477 with respect to such right-of-way; and establishes a 3-year statute of limitations to challenge any such deeming of relinquishment. Subsection (g) provides for consultation with relevant Federal agencies or tribes and requires concurrence of relevant Federal agencies before a determination of presumptive validity. section 7 Section 7 addresses the relationship between the bill and other law and prior determinations. Subsection (a) provides that authorized officers are to apply Federal law and relevant State law to the extent that State law is consistent with Federal law. Subsection (b) specifies that nothing in the bill will affect, change, alter, or modify Title V of FLPMA or Title IX of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Subsection (c) provides--1) except as provided in this subsection, nothing in the bill applies to or affects the status of any judicial or administrative determinations made prior to its enactment regarding any claim or assertion based on R.S. 2477; 2) any final determination regarding an R.S. 2477 claim or assertion made sooner than 4 years after the enactment of the bill must be filed with relevant offices of the Bureau of Land Management and recorded on appropriate local land records; 3) failure to file or record in accordance with paragraph (2) shall be deemed a relinquishment of any rights purported to have been acquired under R.S. 2477; 4) a deeming of relinquishment for failure to file or record is subject to judicial review; but 5) any such judicial review must be initiated no later than 7 years after the date of enactment of the bill. section 8 Section 8 specifies that no Federal officer, agency, or court shall take any action to affirm the validity of any assertion of a property interest in a right-of-way under R.S. 2477 except with regard to a claim filed under the bill. section 9 Section 9 authorizes appropriations to implement the bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3283, the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act. I do have real concerns about the spiraling trade deficit with China and China's unfair trade practices, and I think Congress should consider possible legislative responses. However, the bill offered today does little to provide assistance to U.S. workers, farmers, and businesses. In fact, it could create additional problems for them. In particular, I am concerned that the legislation could make it more difficult to apply countervailing duties to China and other nonmarket economies while making it easier for them to hide subsidies. Further, by placing this legislation on the suspension calendar, which is reserved for non-controversial legislation, the Republican leadership has refused to offer a full debate to Members to consider alternative plans to strengthen enforcement of our trade policies and hold countries accountable for their trade practices. This procedure makes it clear that real intent here is not so much to address our trade problems--it is more about politics and winning extra votes for passage of CAFTA later this week. It is unfortunate that the Republican leadership has taken this opportunity to bring about stronger trade policies and instead used it to consider a bill that is largely symbolic at best, and could even be harmful. It is for these reasons I will vote against this bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this manager's amendment. I concur with the comments of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and believe he has accurately summarized the strengths of the manager's amendment. I have to tell my colleagues I am particularly heartened that the amendment adds additional provisions intended to improve participation by Hispanics, African Americans, Native Americans, and other minorities in NASA's educational programs. In addition, it addresses some important concerns of the NASA workforce. Finally, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Tennessee (Ranking Member Gordon), this amendment indicates that Congress supports exploration, but also that Congress is making clear that additional funding for exploration should not be obtained by cutting NASA's important science, aeronautics, and education programs. I think this is crucial policy guidance. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to again thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), and the gentleman from Tennessee (Ranking Member Gordon) for this very important piece of legislation, and salute the staff and everybody involved in the crafting of this legislation. I urge the adoption of the manager's amendment.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), for yielding me this time and also for his kind words. I also want to acknowledge my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman, and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), for the work we have all done together for this important legislation. Mr. Chairman, I believe the legislation strikes a productive and essential balance between NASA's core missions and provides important policy direction as the agency embarks on the Mars-Moon initiative. Though I hate to use a cliche, I believe NASA is at a crossroads with its many missions: the Space Shuttle will hopefully be returning to flight next week, after being grounded for nearly 2\1/2\ years; a Hubble Servicing Mission is being considered and prepared for; and NASA is looking to accelerate the development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle; and research universities are anxiously awaiting news about the future of many of their projects with NASA. As NASA moves forward with these initiatives, it is the opportune time for Congress to weigh in and provide NASA with long-term policy direction. The bill takes important steps to ensure that NASA continues its important investment in each of its core missions: science, aeronautics, and human space flight, including human exploration. For example, it sets up a budgetary structure that separates NASA's human space flight and exploration accounts from its science, aeronautics, and education accounts. In addition to establishing flexible firewalls between NASA accounts, it provides guidance on how to deal with subsequent cuts to the overall budget. Namely, any cuts to the NASA budget would reduce the authorizations for each of its accounts proportionally, ensuring one account does not make the bulk of the cut. These provisions provide sound government policy to ensure that the intentions of Congress are followed and that NASA maintains a balance within its missions. The bill contains a number of provisions that seek to establish better oversight of NASA. One I would specifically like to mention requires NASA to provide a transition plan to Congress and identify funds to support any transfer of programs from NASA to NOAA. This should not be considered a congressional endorsement of the transfer of Earth science missions or Earth observing systems from NASA to NOAA. Instead, it intends to ensure that all transfers are done openly. H.R. 3070 also takes commonsense steps to review the extension of missions which have already met their original goals. With minimal investment, many missions, such as Voyager, can continue to provide useful data even though they have exceeded their original operational timelines. The bill requires NASA to review each of the missions and assess the costs and benefits to continue these programs, thus allowing a maximum benefit from all of our investments. I would like to turn to four areas of particular importance to me in the bill: Aeronautics, education, remote sensing and the wonderful Hubble telescope. I am pleased to see the inclusion of positive policy and funding guidance to NASA on revitalizing the aeronautics program at NASA. Historically, aeronautics has provided America with jobs, economic security, a positive input to our balance of trade, and technological advances for both commercial aviation and defense. However, recently those aeronautics investments have been declining with projections of continuing decline in the NASA budget. This all comes at a time when the European Union has announced a goal to become a leader in aeronautics by 2020 and is increasing R&D funding in aeronautics to $2.5 billion. If we are to remain competitive, we must revitalize our R&D programs to match what the European Union and other nations in the world are doing. The aeronautics piece also names three breakthrough R&D initiatives in subsonic, supersonic and rotorcraft, as well as rejects the proposed decline in the aeronautics budget by authorizing increased R&D funding for 2006 and 2007. Overall the bill ensures that we continue to be a global leader in aeronautics. As this body knows, and as the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) just shared with us, the United States is not graduating students in science, technology, engineering and math in the numbers required to sustain our current workforce. As we prepare for the return of flight with the Shuttle, young boys and girls are looking up to the astronaut corps and thinking one day they would like to become astronauts. The bill provides specific emphasis on the education programs within NASA that excite and inspire our youth to continue to study in these fields. NASA's missions have the power to attract the American public, both young and old, and I believe we need to ensure that we utilize this excitement and encourage students to follow their childhood dreams of working with NASA. I am pleased that the bill recognizes the importance of ensuring that our minority and economically disadvantaged young people have access to NASA's educational activities. Turning to another topic, many of the American public only see NASA looking outward into space. However, the agency's Earth science program provides valuable information about our own planet. NASA collects data about the Earth that has practical applications for States, tribal agencies, cities, and municipalities by providing geospatial data from satellites. I am particularly interested because in my home State of Colorado, we have two of the leading companies involved in this important work, and many cities and counties in Colorado are working to address growth and sprawl. A bill that I have introduced which has been incorporated into this bill works to increase access to that data from both commercial and public sources. Lastly, I am gratified that the bill calls for a human servicing mission to be scheduled once the Shuttle has returned to flight with appropriate safety precautions and provides authorization funding for the mission to service the Hubble telescope. Hubble has truly become the people's telescope. Its data is accessible to scientists and nonscientists alike, and has allowed amateur astronomers of all ages to study our universe. I am pleased that NASA has already taken these steps towards a human servicing mission, and this bill affirms the congressional commitment to extending the life of Hubble. In closing, I again want to acknowledge the great leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), for their work on the bill. This legislation has truly been the result of productive and positive dialogue and negotiations on both sides of the aisle. The staff has done a marvelous job in bringing us together as well. I believe this is the right policy for NASA, and I urge Members to support its passage.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of her important amendment. We all know that safety is a top priority for our space program and this is a sensible measure the House should support.